Judgment D.P.S.Choudhary, J. 1. This jail appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 17th of April, 1995 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa in Sessions Trial Case, No. 41 of 1989/ 23 of 1989 convicting the appellants under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C.) and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 10 years. 2. The accused was charged under Sec. 395, I.P.C. conjointly with nine other unknown accused-persons for committing road dacoity. As per the prosecution case, the alleged offence took place on 30-12-1986 on the road north of village Bangaon, P.S. Bangaon, District Saharsa, The informant Dr. Arjun Prasad Singh (P.W. 6) who was Honorary Secretary of the Central Co-operative Bank went to Supaul from Madhepura by the Banks Jeep and after inspecting the work of Supaul Branch of Bank proceeded at about 4,00 p.m. for village Sukhpur. The Jeep was being driven by Upendra Yadav (P.W. 4) and he was accompanied with Gajendra Narain Singh (P.W. 5), Kameshwar Singh (P.W. 3) and Sudhir Narain Singh (P.W. 2). It is further alleged that the informant was returning home after attending the social function at about 7.15 p.m. and when he reached at 6th mile post north of village Bangaon, he found the road blocked by putting obstructions by bundles of Hay. The Jeep was stopped. Some of the occupants got down from the Jeep with an intention to remove the obstruction. In the meantime, about 10 unknown persons appeared at the scene and surrounded the vehicle and some of them pointed pistols and directed all the occupants to get down from the Jeep. The informant (P.W. 6) took out his licensed pistol and warned the, culprits, but in the meantime the accused-persons covered his nephew Gajendra Singh (P.W. 5) at the point of pistol and threatened to kill. The informant thereafter put down his arms. All the miscreants took away the valuables from each of the occupants of the Jeep and also snatched the pistol of the informant. The miscreants shut down the informant and his associates inside the vehicle and took away ignition key of the same. It is further case of the prosecution that miscreants also looted an Ambassador car which arrived at the place of occurrence. The miscreants shut down the informant and his associates inside the vehicle and took away ignition key of the same. It is further case of the prosecution that miscreants also looted an Ambassador car which arrived at the place of occurrence. It is further case of the prosecution that in the headlight of Jeep, the informant and his companions identified some of the accused including the appellant by face. One of the miscreant was limping. After detaining the informant and his men for about three hours, they returned back the key of the vehicle. Thereafter, the informant with his companion left the place and on the next day, i.e. 31-12-1986 at 1.30 p.m. after knowing that the place of occurrence lies within the jurisdiction of Bangaon Police Station, lodged his written report (Ext. 2) on the basis of which the case was registered and First Information Report (Ext. 3) was drawn up against 10 unknown persons. During the course of investigation, some of the culprits including the accused-appellant were arrested as suspect. The appellant was put on test identification parade which was conducted by the Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa (P.W. 1). The informant, and other P.Ws. including P.Ws. 2, 4, 5 and 6 identified the accused-appellant on 12-5-1987 inside the Saharsa District jail. The Test Identification Parade chart is marked Ext. 1. 3. The case of the defence is denial of the entire occurrence and of false implication due to political rivalry in between the informant and accused-persons. It is also the case of the defence that informant is an active member of the Congress Party and accused is of rivalry party. It is also the case of the defence that at the time of election of Co-operative Bank, the informant has given his licensed pistol to some criminals which was not returned back to him, therefore, in order to cover this fact he has falsely instituted this case, alleging therein that his pistol was also snatched by the miscreants. 4. Out of the six witnesses examined on behalf of the. prosecution, P.W. 1 is the Judicial Magistrate, who conducted the test Identification Parade. He has proved test identification parade chart (Ext. 1 ) and stated that on 12-5-1987 in obedience of the direction, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa, he got the test identification parade of the accused conducted in jail. 10 persons of similar identity were mixed with the suspect. prosecution, P.W. 1 is the Judicial Magistrate, who conducted the test Identification Parade. He has proved test identification parade chart (Ext. 1 ) and stated that on 12-5-1987 in obedience of the direction, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa, he got the test identification parade of the accused conducted in jail. 10 persons of similar identity were mixed with the suspect. According to him, the informant Dr. Arjun Pd. Singh (P.W. 6), Upendra Yadav (P.W. 4), Sudhir Narain Singh (P.W. 2) and Gajendra Narain Singh (P.W. 5) identified the suspect (appellant). These witnesses stated that at the time of identification, they had identified the accused-appellant in the head light of the Jeep. 5. The learned appellants lawyer has not vehemently denied the factum of dacoity but his main contention is that the appellant has been falsely implicated. It was further submitted on his behalf that on the point of dacoity, only interested witnesses have been examined, including P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 5 and the informant. (P.W. 6). The are all the men of the informant who were travelling in the Jeep, and no local person has been examined in support, of the prosecution case. I have carefully examined the evidence of these witnesses who were victim of road robbery They were travelling in the said Jeep which was looted by the miscreants on the road. There is nothing in the cross-examination to suggest that these witnesses have any animosity either political or personal with the accused-appellant. None of the witnesses, including the informant, know the accused-appellant from before. The appellant is a resident of a different locality and was strangers to the informant and other P.Ws. Since he was limping and was identified in the headlight of the Jeep, there-fore, these witnesses identified him in the T.I.P. From the evidence of the P.Ws. It is manifest that they are material eye-witness and also the victims of the occurrence. Hence, their evidence are liable both on the far turn of dacoity and on the identification of the accused-appellant. The alleged offence took place at a lonely place in the night, therefore, the possibility of presence of local witnesses was not possible. The trial Court has discussed the evidence of all the P.Ws. Hence, their evidence are liable both on the far turn of dacoity and on the identification of the accused-appellant. The alleged offence took place at a lonely place in the night, therefore, the possibility of presence of local witnesses was not possible. The trial Court has discussed the evidence of all the P.Ws. in detail and has come to the conclusion that the accused-appellant was one of the miscreant who committed dacoity on the highway and looted the belongings of the informant and other P.Ws. There is no cogent ground to interfere with the finding of the trial Court on the point of factum of dacoity as well as on the point of identification of the accused-appellant in the said dacoity. 6. The learned appellants lawyer submitted that the alleged offence took place in the night of 30-12-1986 whereas the T.I.P. of the accused-appellant was held on 12-5-1987, after lapse of about five months. The delay in holding the T.I.P. is a circumstance to show that the witnesses have not identified the accused-appellant correctly because with the lapse of time, it was not possible to identify him correctly. The lower Court record and the impugned judgment show that this accused-appellant was absconding for long period as mentioned in the case diary (Ext. 4) and he was arrested only few days before the T.I.P. was held. Therefore, this delay has been explained by the prosecution convincingly besides there cannot be any confusion on the part of the P.Ws. in identifying the accused-appellant after lapse of five months of the occurrence because in the F.I.R. it is mentioned that one of the miscreants was limping and at the time of T.I.P., the accused-appellant was found limping and this fact mentioned in the T.I.P. chart also. 7. The next point raised on behalf of the appellant is that the occurrence took place in the night of 30-12-1986 but the written report was lodged on 31-12-1986 at 1.30 hours and this delay has not been explained by the prosecution. In paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment, the trial Court has discussed this point. The informant was unknown to the place of occurrence which took place in the night. He was not sure that in which jurisdiction of the Police Station, the place of occurrence lies. In paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment, the trial Court has discussed this point. The informant was unknown to the place of occurrence which took place in the night. He was not sure that in which jurisdiction of the Police Station, the place of occurrence lies. Therefore, after the occurrence he went to his house and in the next morning after ascertaining that place of occurrence lies in Bangaon P.S. the written report was lodged. Therefore, the reason for delay has been explained by the prosecution. 8. In the last, it was submitted on behalf of the prosecution that, appellant is in custody since 30-4-1987. The lower Court record shows that in between this period for about three months, he was on provisional bail and thereafter, again he surrendered. Therefore, he has remained in jail custody for more than 10 years. 9. Heard the learned A.P.P., who stated that lower Court record shows that the appellant is in custody since 30-4-1987. 10. From the submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the evidence, I come to the conclusion that prosecution hat: been able to substantiate the charge against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. The trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Sec. 395, I.P.C. and it does not require any interference. 11. In the result, I do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Since the appellant has remained in custody for about 10 years, the jail authorities are directed to release the accused-appellant forthwith, if not released as yet or not wanted in any other case.